Posterior shoulder dislocation confirmed by ultrasound

I've previously described an "ultrasound win," where bedside US helped prevent an unneeded (and fruitless) procedural sedation. In this case, the ultrasound is used to confirm an infrequent type of dislocation.

The Case
A young muscular male had been in a car accident. Despite devastating damage to the vehicle, he only complained of left shoulder pain. An x-ray of the shoulder was obtained...

...and suggested a posterior dislocation of the shoulder. Quite unusual!

The x-ray shows at least 3 radiographic signs supporting a posterior dislocation: A rim sign (the two red lines), a light bulb sign (outlined by, well, the light bulb), and the "Mouzopoulos sign"(hightlighted by the blue "M".").

Nonetheless, some doubt remained, since posterior shoulder dislocations are infrequent, and we wanted the diagnosis to be certain before breaking out the propofol! So we did an ultrasound of the shoulder.

Ultrasound for the ..  Wait, "win" is already taken?
The probe was place in transverse orientation across the posterior aspect of the left shoulder, probe marker pointing laterally, to the patient's left:

Lemme annotate that for you:

The humeral head is clearly posterior to the glenoid, conforming a posterior dislocation. Compare this with a normal left shoulder where the humeral head is well-seated in the glenoid:

Bottom line:
The next time you have any concern about the shoulder, grab a quick posterior view, even if you are already getting an x-ray.

“The BNP is high – just give Lasix!”

This isn't rocket science, right? If your hypoxic patient has a high BNP and a wet CXR, then you give then a diuretic, and admit them. Done, next patient!

Some POCUS skeptics would argue, however, that using echo in CHF doesn't really affect diagnosis or management. Of course, many of these same clinicians unironically carry a modern version of the sacred hollow stick around their necks...

Something Doc Cottle always carries: Lit cigarette.
Something Doc Cottle never carries:  Stethoscope.

So, can focused echo help us change our acute management?  

TL;DR - Yes.
TL; Will Read - Yes!

The Case:

An elderly male with a history of systolic & diastolic CHF is brought in by EMS. He describes an acute onset of dyspnea and wheezing 1 hour prior. Worse with lying down and exertion. Denies recent leg swelling or weight gain, and denies fevers, chills, or sputum. 
 
His systolic BP is > 200 mm Hg. No JVD, but prominent wheezing diffusely.

Before the CXR, ECG, or labs can be obtained, a focused ultrasound is performed.

A flat, collapsing IVC, but…

… numerous B-lines in the bilateral anterior apices, while …

… the EF appears to be only moderately decreased (chronic, per the last echo in the record).

So how does clinical care change based on the ultrasound?

The patient probably doesn’t have volume overload, given the markedly flat IVC. Indeed, he may actually be hyPOvolemic.

The dramatic “hive” of B-lines in the anterior apices, however, suggests that he nonetheless has quite a bit of water in his lungs.*** Plenty of research has shown that the number of B-lines is proportional to increases in pulmonary wedge pressure, to increases in extravascular lung water, and even increases in BNP. 

So, despite the flat IVC, he most likely has acute decompensated heart failure, due to diastolic heart failure (Scott Weingart has referred to this as SCAPE).

He isn’t volume overloaded, just volume maldistributed!
 
(*** Yes, a number of other etiologies can produce B-lines/acute interstitial syndrome. But:

• Bilateral B-lines suggest against pneumonia;
• Acute development weigh against pulmonary fibrosis or pneumonitis; and 
• Absence of another severe disease did not support ARDS.)

Treatment

Since the echo suggests that high systemic vascular resistance is the problem, and not sheer volume overload, he is given 3 nitroglycerin tabs under the tongue (yes, 3 tabs at once).

His wheezing stops almost instantly, like someone had flicked a switch. The pro-BNP eventually came back at a kagillion, but his chest x-ray (obtained long after the nitro was given) looks benign.  This complicates the dialogue with the admitting team.
 
“Hey, I don’t have to stay the night, do I?”

The stethoscope – “it’s not a lie if you believe it.”

The skillful use of the stethoscope is a key element of the physical exam. Introduced in 1816, it afforded an unprecedented “view” inside the body. Since then it has evolved to become synonymous with being a physician (as well as nurse, paramedic,  tech, etc. 

 

Etc.

But technology has progressed since Laënnec pressed his crude prototype against the chest of his first patient. We have discovered what electromagnetic radiation can reveal in an x-ray; we discovered that subatomic particles can be excited in a magnetic field, producing images of exquisite detail. And we discovered, uh, sound.  {Citation needed}

But regardless of all these new technologies, we all keep carting around our space-age versions of Laënnec’s hollow wood stick, draped around our necks, ready to bonk us in the eye if we make any sudden moves.   Why?

We all occasionally joke that these diagnostic devices serve mostly as “doctor jewelry,” and that we will always use a CXT, CT, MR, or whatever, to confirm our auscultations. However, if the conversation turns serious, we will solemnly avow the sacrosanct role of the hollow stick. “Nothing can replace a thorough Hx and P,” we intone, “nothing.”

We are, in that moment, the most harmful species of liar – the liar that believes the lie.

"Jerry, just remember. It's not a lie... if you believe it."

We need to stop, take a deep breath, look ourselves in the eye, and admit that we have not been truthful with thine own self. Dare to say the following; first while alone in your locked bathroom, then in a safe 12-step environment, and then eventually in public:

The stethoscope is a vestigial element of the physical exam, and ought to be retired.

Sort of the tone I'm shooting for.

First off, the physical exam in general is not that helpful.

Accordingly, the stethoscope is a vestigial element of a whole ritual of limited utility. In one study, the history was 20 times more useful than the physical exam. Heck, just using the ECG, CXR, and basic labs was more useful than the physical exam! In another study, looking at the ability to diagnose nerve root compression in back pain, the exam only improved the accuracy marginally, budging the AUC from 0.8 to 0.83. (OTOH, in appendicitis, tenderness in the RLQ kind of blows history out of the water...)

Second, the stethoscope sucks (or blows?)

While revolutionary in its day, the 'scope has seen its diagnostic performance plummet as medicine progressed. Pneumonia provides the best example of the limited contemporary accuracy of the stethoscope.

A systematic review in the Emergency Medicine Journal concluded that "pneumonia cannot reliably be confirmed or excluded by auscultation, or indeed physical examination, alone.” The most recent study in that review looked at patients coming into the ED with “chest symptoms,” and looked at how the diagnostic impression changed from pre- to post-auscultation, and then post-discharge. The vast majority of the time, about 95%, the clinical impression did not change after using the sacred hollow stick. 

 

Might have better luck with a Harry Potter replica wand.

Pneumonia, in particular, was diagnosed correctly in 45% of patients with history alone, and only improved to 49% after the exam.

An earlier study looked only at CXR-verified pneumonia, and blinded the auscultators to the clinical history. It wasn’t pretty – the sensitivity of the 3 examiners ranged from 47% to 69%. Specificity wasn’t much better.

This all comports with a JAMA metaanalysis from 1997 that concluded that “no individual clinical findings, or combinations of findings, that can rule in the diagnosis of pneumonia.” Specifically, while one study was wildly bullish on egophony, all the auscultation signs were of variable sensitivity, and generally low yield.

(BTW, CHF is even worse for the proponents of ‘scopes. While crackles modestly raise the likelihood of CHF, and wheezes modestly decrease such likelihood, there is some serious overlap! Between 1/5 to 1/3 of patients manifest wheezing with acute CHF. By the same token, wheezing is surprisingly unhelpful in diagnosing or excluding obstructive lung disease.)

Compare this to using ultrasound: 

While some authors have stated that “highly-skilled sonographers“ are required to diagnose pneumonia with ultrasound, a recent study required pediatric EM doctors to undergo only 1 hour of training. Despite this limited education, the sensitivity and specificity of US for CXR-proven consolidation was 86% and 89%. However, another study, using CT scan as the gold standard, found US to be far more sensitive than CXR. A raft of other studies have come out in the last few years (do they ultrasound anything but lungs in Italy?), backing up these results.

So, why are you carrying that MRSA biofilm-vehicle around the same neck your kids touch?

If you really need some jewelry to identify you as a doc, you can get a stethoscope earring. Cute as heck, and unlikely to get covered in MRSA, or give you a black eye.

Oral contrast for abdominal CT?

PO, IV contrast for abdominal CT

This material is educational, and is not intended to serve as hospital protocol.
 

Mostly, it's here to serve a quick reference for myself, and for impromptu discussions with PAs and residents.

SUMMARY

Suspected SBO

Oral contrast is contraindicated in suspected SBO.

IV contrast is preferred, but not required.

Suspected appendicitis

Oral contrast is not required, but may be beneficial in extremely thin individuals (e.g. BMI < 18), or non-obese children.

Suspected diverticulitis

Oral contrast is not required

Unclear etiology

PO contrast is suggested by some experts in undifferentiated abd pain if the patient

1)   Is very thin (e.g. < 120 pounds, BMI < 18);

2)   Has had a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass; or

3)   Has and inflammatory bowel disease that could produce a fistula

Discussion and References

SBO

Per the American College of Radiology guidelines, in a patient with suspected SBO, PO contrast is contraindicated. They explain that: “Oral contrast will not reach the site of obstruction, wastes time, adds expense, can induce further patient discomfort, will not add to diagnostic accuracy, and can lead to complications, particularly vomiting and aspiration.”    

http://www.guideline.gov/content.aspx?id=47654#Section420

Appendicitis

Multiple studies have shown that the use of PO contrast does not increase the accuracy of the diagnosis of appendicitis (references below). An editorial in a recent radiology journal concluded that “routine administration of oral contrast medium may not be necessary in the setting of suspected acute appendicitis.” American College of Radiology guidelines state that PO contrast “may not be needed,” leave the decision to use PO contrast to “institutional preference.”

Some have suggested that PO contrast might be needed in extremely thin individuals (e.g. BMI < 18). See the discussion below in "Unclear etiology."

A 2005 systematic review from the American Journal of Surgery concluded that: “Noncontrast CT techniques to diagnose appendicitis showed equivalent or better diagnostic performance compared with CT scanning with oral contrast.”

A 2009 randomized study in the American Journal of Radiology found that “nontraumatic abdominal pain imaged using 64-MDCT with isotropic reformations had similar characteristics for the diagnosis of appendicitis when IV contrast material alone was used and when oral and IV contrast media were used.”

A 2011 retrospective study in the Journal of Surgical Research found that oral contrast did not reach the cecum in 1/3 of patients. Furthermore, “there appears to be no diagnostic compromise in those without contrast in the terminal ileum.

A 2014 prospective study in the Annals of Surgery concluded that: “Enteral contrast should be eliminated in IV-enhanced CT scans performed for suspected appendicitis.”

Diverticulitis

The American College of Radiology guidelines state that PO contrast “may be helpful for bowel luminal visualization.” Despite this, they conclude that “regardless of the [the use or lack of IV or PO contrast], the accuracy is high for depicting findings of acute diverticulitis.”

A 2006 prospective study in Emergency Radiology looked at patients with undifferentiated abdominal pain in the ED; 1/5 of them had LLQ tenderness, and diverticulitis was the second-most common suspected diagnosis. All patients had CT scans with and without PO contrast; no IV contrast was used. Although there were discordant interpretations between the (+) PO and (-) PO CT scans, the authors found that a “significant portion of the discordance was attributable to interobserver variability.” Thus, it would appear that a CT scan without either PO or IV contrast could be accurate in the diagnosis of diverticulitis.

Unclear etiology

Oral contrast may not be needed for undifferentiated abdominal pain, as per the discussion of the study in Emergency Radiology noted above.

However, in a 2012 study in Emergency Radiology that examined the use of PO contrast in undifferentiated non-traumatic abd pain, the authors excluded 2 groups of patients.  They excluded all “subjectively thin” patients, but did not provide cut-offs. They noted the research that suggests this exclusion is unnecessary, and may be dropped in the future.  They also excluded patients at high risk for having an intra-abdominal fistula. Primarily, they targeted patients who had had a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or who had IBD, disposing them to fistula formation.

Is the shoulder in? Use ultrasound!

It was a classic “good news/bad news” sign out.

The  attending who was signing out to me admitted that this wasn't the cleanest sign-out, but they had a plan.


The bad news: the patient likely had a shoulder dislocation, but the read on the X-ray was equivocal.

  

"Can I order a clinical correlation?"

Given this unclear picture, the plan was to try sedation, and pop it back in place. 

The good news: the attending had already tasked a senior resident and the orthopedics PA-C to perform the sedation and (attempted) reduction, and they were champing at the bit to do the procedure. 

My evaluation

I looked at the X-ray, and re-examined the patient. As he was young chubby guy, it was difficult to be sure of the exam. Since both my exam and the X-ray were so unhelpful, I stalled the resident and PA-C while I grabbed the ultrasound.

Now, ultrasound is not usually thought of as a great test for shoulder dislocation. The usual approach to definitively excluding a glenphumeral dislocation (especially posterior dislocation!) is to obtain an axillary view, shooting up through the armpit. And of course we can always get a CT of the joint.

But you can get much the same image with the ultrasound. So, placing the probe on the posterior shoulder, I aimed anteriorly, with the left side of the screen oriented to the lateral aspect, like this:

This produced a clear image of the glenohumeral joint:

 

As usual, US is best appreciated dynamically, with this clip showing the patient rotating his arm:

I hope you can see how the head of the humerus is well-seated in the glenoid. But despite this dazzling proof, x-rays and a CT were needed to convince ortho that the shoulder was not dislocated, and that no sedation and tugging were needed.

The (ionizing radiation) proof

The axillary view of the shoulder X-ray (needs to be specifically ordered), oriented similarly to the US:

 The CT of the shoulder, with the slices and orientation similar to the US:

If you want to check out some other US examples of dislocated shoulders, you can also check out this great video from ALiEM:

Ultrasound for the ... Wait, what?!

I would have liked to say this was an ultrasound win, but I'm not so sure. The downsides of this approach, in retrospect, were:

• The patient didn't get to enjoy some of our high-grade ketamine;
• We didn't get to high-five each other after our "subtle reduction;" and
• The resident was cheated out of a procedure!

So, know the downsides ahead of time.

High-flow nasal cannulas: Not yet ready for ED use.

What is high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy, and, more importantly, does it work? A recent segment on EM:RAP went into a fair amount of detail about the putative mechanism, so I’ll leave that alone.

What that segment left out, though, was any discussion of the published evidence pointing to the benefit of HFNC. And indeed, while there are a lot of anecdotal reports and personal testimonials, the actual data hasn’t been clearly discussed. Here’s a quick review of what we currently know.

1. Preterm infants

Although the “diet-PEEP” argument would suggest that HFNC might have a large role in tiny patients, it isn’t clear that HFNC helps prevent intubation in preemies. A Cochrane review suggested that using HFNC post-extubation, instead of CPAP, might lead to higher re-intubation rates. An RCT that was conducted after that review, however, found that HFNC was roughly equivalent to nasal CPAP for respiratory support in this age group. Data from other recent trials haven’t been as convincing, though, and many neonatologists still find the evidence “insufficient” to use HFNC in place of more established therapies

2. Infants

It may help prevent intubation of little kids with bronchiolitis, although the data is weak. The two most relevant studies were retrospective chart reviews, using a before-and-after design, looking at overall rates for intubation in the time period after HFNC was introduced to the pediatric service. Nonetheless, McKiernan found that intubation rates for bronchiolitis dropped from 23 % to 9%, and Schibler found the rate plummeted for 37% to 7%!

McKiernan 2010

This may end up being one of the best-supported roles for HFNC, and high-quality studies are in progress that could help clarify the issue.

3. Adults

The initial trials in adults have demonstrated modest improvements in oxygenation, but haven't studied patient oriented-outcomes. For example, one study found that oxygenation mildly increased after HFNC initiation, but no control group was used.

Sztrymf 2012

In one controlled trial, versus face mask, fewer desaturations were seen with HFNC. Despite this, there was no statistical difference in the use of rescue CPAP/BiPAP. A few other studies have further noted that HFNC seems to be more comfortable than CPAP.

A single-author review, otherwise very bullish on HFNC therapy, conceded: “although some clinicians may have the impression that in some instances, use of HFNC has avoided intubation, this has not been shown in a controlled trial.”

The largest current review on the use of HFNC concludes that (my emphasis):

“While theoretical advantages exist over standard nasal cannula and face mask oxygen, current evidence does not definitively demonstrate superiority to other methods of respiratory support. Few studies have focused on clinical outcomes beyond common respiratory parameters. Given the potential lack of consistency of positive pressure generated with current HFNC systems, NIV such as CPAP and bilevel positive airway pressure should still be considered first line therapy in moderately distressed patients in whom supplementation oxygen is insufficient and when a consistent positive pressure is indicated.”

Bringing it home!

Being an “early-adopter” is cool – if you’re lining up to get the new iPhone or Zune! In medicine, however, it doesn’t often pay to jump on a bandwagon before the data is in. (Want to buy some Xigris cheap?) We are being encouraged to try a new therapy that uses proprietary (proprietary = $) devices, with soft indications, scant evidence, but with touted outcomes such as “improved comfort,” instead of mortality or rates of intubation. We should be cautious.

Particularly concerning is the uncritical enthusiasm for the use of this device in situations that either clearly call for other therapies, or for no therapy. For example, some describe the utility of HFNC in patients who are “extremely hypoxic,” but there is little evidence that HFNC improves outcomes in this population.

HFNC is probably more useful for precisely titrating FIO2 in the (mythical?) CO2 retainer. But if there is a concern about the PaCO2, why not use a proven therapy like NPPV that we know saves lives?

Lastly, some clinicians promote the use of HFNC for CHF, since there is (wink, wink) a “PEEP component,” but that’s a patient who needs CPAP or BiPAP as well, since we already have proven a mortality benefit in that population as well.

Sure, you can relax, talk with family, and eat while wearing HFNC, but if you are so dead set on wolfing down a sandwich, you probably don’t need an expensive, unproven therapy. You need 2 liters per minute, and a floor bed!

Femoral pulse during CPR - Arterial or Venous?

There are many uncertainties about how each of us will die.

Based on my experience in the ED, however, many of us will spend our last minutes on Earth with a stranger's hand shoved into our groin.

Your own hand? Fine.

I'm talking about the checking the femoral pulse during CPR, of course. It's a well-enshrined part of our resuscitation practices, but what it is it actually telling us?

The Theory
The idea, of course, is that effective CPR will produce an arterial pulse, albeit weak, that will generate a cardiac output about 20% of normal. Palpating a femoral pulse during compressions supposedly verifies that the CPR is being effectively delivered.

Evidence that the femoral pulse is venousHowever, there is some uncertainty about what a palpable femoral pulse actually represents. Hilty used ultrasound in a study of central line placement during cardiac arrest, and noted that 9/20 patients appeared to have femoral venous pulsations, rather than arterial.

Note that this was in the dark ages of ED ultrasound (1997), back before Christian Doppler was born. 

Based on this finding, as well as on a case report of two kids getting open-chest cardiac compressions, many people now believe that the femoral pulse during CPR is just the venous back-flow. A video posted by an emergency physician in Qatar supports this view, where he demonstrates interrogation of the femoral vessels with power doppler during CPR:

The femoral vein shows much brighter signal than the artery, suggesting that the venous flow far exceed the arterial. Of course, since this is power doppler, we don't know the direction of the flow.

Evidence that the femoral pulse is arterial?
Cardiac arrest, asystole when EMS arrived in the ED, the LUCAS dutifully chugging along.  

Probe placed in the right groin, angled cephalad slightly. First, with color doppler:

The femoral artery seems to show a fairly well-defined arterial pulse, while the femoral vein has a turbulent, almost "yin-yang-like" character, that does not suggest effective flow. So based on this clip, it seems like the femoral pulse indeed reflects arterial impulses, not venous.

(BTW, here's a clip of the same view, while the LUCAS was taking a break. Just so you know that there was no spontaneous cardiac activity mucking up the doppler.)

So, what does the femoral pulse tell us about CPR quality?
Not much, probably. The scanty and conflicting "evidence" (i.e. collection of anecdotes) reviewed here doesn't make it clear if pulsations in the groin are coming from the artery, the vein, or perhaps even both. This looks like a promising avenue for an emergency ultrasound study!

In the meantime, assessing the quality of CPR is likely best done with end-tidal CO2, although a recent Ultrasound Podcast episode suggested using focused echo  to optimize compressions.